Fairness in life and Death Cases

Author: Lang, Gerald

Source: Erkenntnis, Volume 62, Number 3, January 2005 , pp. 321-351(31)

Publisher: Springer

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $47.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

John Taurek famously argued that, in ‘conflict cases’, where we are confronted with a smaller and a larger group of individuals, and can choose which group to save from harm, we should toss a coin, rather than saving the larger group. This is primarily because coin-tossing is fairer: it ensures that each individual, regardless of the group to which he or she belongs, has an equal chance of being saved. This article provides a new response to Taurek’s argument. It proposes that there are two possible types of unfairness that have to be avoided in conflict cases, as far as possible: ‘selection unfairness’, which is the unfairness of not giving individuals an equal chance of being saved; and ‘outcome unfairness’, which is the unfairness of not actually saving them, when others are saved. Since saving the greater number generates less outcome unfa-irness than coin-tossing, it is argued that, in many conflict cases, fairness demands that we save the greater number.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-004-4499-y

Affiliations: 1: St. Catherine’s College, Manor Road, Oxford, OX 3UJ, UK,

Publication date: 2005-01-01